Dismissed

Winson.M.T., v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC17 Jan 2019WP(Crl.)/508/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged detention of his son under KAAPA alleging violation of Article 22 rights due to initial non-communication of records and orders in English. Court found records were communicated in vernacular as per endorsement, rejected challenge, and dismissed petition.

What did the court decide?

Dismissal of the writ petition challenging the detention order; no order as to costs.

Winson.M.T., Vs State of Kerala — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Kerala HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.VINOD CHANDRAN

¶4

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK MENON

¶6

THURSDAY ,THE 17TH DAY OF JANUARY 2019 / 27TH POUSHA, 1940

¶7

WP(Crl.).No. 508 of 2018

¶8

PETITIONER/S:

¶9

WINSON.M.T., AGED 54 YEARS S/O.THOMAS, KALLUVETTUKUZHIYIL, KATTACHIRA P.O., KIDANGOOR, KOTTAYAM- 686572.

¶10

BY ADVS. SRI.NANDAGOPAL S.KURUP SRI.K.ASHIS

¶11

RESPONDENT/S:

¶12

1 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695001.

¶13

2 DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,

¶14

KOTTAYAM- 686572.

¶15

3 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, KOTTAYAM- 686572.

¶16

4 SUB-INSPECTOR OF POLICE, ETTUMANOOR EAST POLICE STATION, KOTTAYAM- 686572.

¶17

5 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, VIYYUR- 680010.

¶18

6 THE SUPERINTENDENT, CENTRAL PRISON, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 680010.

¶19

BY SRI.SURESH BABU THOMAS, ADDL.DGP SRI K.A.ANAS, GP

¶20

OTHER PRESENT:

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17.01.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

WP(Crl.) 508/2018

JUDGMENT

Ashok Menon, J.

The father of Justin K.Sunny, a detenu under the Kerala Anti-social Activities (Prevention) Act, 2007 (for brevity 'KAAPA'), is the petitioner challenging the detention of his son vide Ext.P1 order dated 20.07.2018 of the District Magistrate, Kottayam directing his preventive detention from 24.07.2018 for a period of six months for reason of being a “Known Rowdy”.

¶27

The detention order was based on Ext.P2 report

¶28

dated 18.06.2017 of the District Police Chief,

¶29

Kottayam. The Government vide Ext.P3 order dated 06.08.2018 approved the detention, and later confirmed vide Ext.P4 order. A representation was made by the detenu, through the Superintendent of the Jail, which

¶30

was considered by the 1^st respondent and rejected as per Ext.P5.

¶31

The only objection, raised in challenge of the

¶32

detention, is that the detenu was not given any

¶33

documents pertaining to the proceedings against him and

¶34

WP(Crl.) 508/2018

¶35

¶36

that the respondents had failed to inform him about his

¶37

right to submit a representation before the Government and the Advisory Board. He was also not informed about his right to consult a lawyer to defend him. Only after his detention, did he know about his right to submit a representation before the Government, which was submitted, but rejected. It is also stated that the detenu is school drop out at Std.IX and could not

¶38

read, write or understand English, and therefore, could not comprehend Exts.P3 and P4 orders in English, when communicated to him.

¶39

It is stated that the detenu could know about the contents of Ext.P1 detention order only after he applied for and got it under the Right to Information

¶40

Act. It is further submitted that the very precious right of the detenu has been infringed by not being

¶41

provided with the copies of necessary documents, so as

¶42

to enable him to defend himself. Therefore, the petitioner prays that the detention order may be quashed/set aside, and the Court may be pleased to

¶43

WP(Crl.) 508/2018

¶44

¶45

issue a writ of habeas corpus compelling production of the detenu and set him at liberty.

¶46

We heard the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner and the Government Pleader, representing the official respondents.

¶47

The detention order would indicate that the

¶48

detenu was implicated and arraigned as an accused in seven crimes registered at Ettumanoor and Kuruvilangad

¶49

Police Stations during the period 29.02.2016 to 11.02.2018 for offences ranging from mischief, simple hurt, criminal intimidation, grievous hurt and attempt to culpable homicide not amounting to murder. He was

¶50

also included in the rowdy list and proceedings under Section 107, Cr.P.C. was initiated against him. The

¶51

detention order finds his activities sufficient to define him as a known-rowdy, coming within the definition of Sections 2(p) and 2(t) of the KAAPA and despite his being discharged on bail under Section 107

¶52

of the Cr.P.C. to keep peace and good behaviour, he was incorrigible.

¶53

WP(Crl.) 508/2018

¶54

¶55

Perusal of the documents would sufficiently

¶56

indicate that the detenu was rightly confined under the preventive provisions of the KAAPA. The only objection raised with regard to the detention is that he has not been provided with the records so as to enable him to raise his defence. The learned Government Pleader has produced the copy of the order on which there is an endorsement in the handwriting of the detenu that he did receive the copies of the order and all pertinent records relied upon, on 24.07.2018. Hence, the objection pertaining to the non-receipt of Exts.P1 and P2, as well as the accompanying records, fails. The order, which was served on the detenu, would clearly indicate that he has the right to make his submissions before the Government as well as the Advisory Board against the detention order, and the said endorsement is not in English, but in vernacular, and the petitioner has no case that the detenu is not able to write or read vernacular.

¶57

In view of the above, the only objection, which has been raised by the petitioner challenging the detention

¶58

WP(Crl.) 508/2018

¶59

¶60

order, would fall to ground. There are no other

¶61

grounds to dislodge the impugned order of detention and hence, this petition is only to be rejected. No order as to costs.

Sd/-

K.VINOD CHANDRAN

JUDGE

Sd/-

ASHOK MENON

JUDGE

dkr

WP(Crl.) 508/2018

APPENDIX

PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

¶73

EXHIBIT P1	TRUE COPY OF THE DCKTM/6290/2018-1	DETENTION ORDER NUMBERED 7 DATED 20.07.2018.
EXHIBIT P2	TRUE COPY OF THE THIRD RESPONDENT RESPONDENT.	REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE BEFORE THE SECOND
EXHIBIT P3	TRUE COPY OF THE THE FIRST RESPOND	APPROVAL ORDER PASSED BY ENT DATED 06.08.2018.
EXHIBIT P4	TRUE COPY OF THE PASSED BY THE FIR	ORDER DATED 05.10.2018 ST RESPONDENT.
EXHIBIT P5	TRUE COPY OF THE	ORDER DATED 28.09.2018.

Winson.M.T., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Winson.M.T., v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Commissioner Ofincome Tax, Vs Sri Rajesh Kumar T.R.(Late)

M/S.Sree Chithra Educational Cultural Vs Deputy Director of Income Tax (Exemption

James Thomas Vs State of Kerala

The Commissioner of Income Tax Vs M.S.Rathi

The Commissioner of Income Tax-Ii,Cochin Vs P.Sreenivasan,Chennai

M/S. Skyline Builders Vs the Commissioner of Income Tax